get_attachment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses that bytes are returned exactly as Notes holds them, with original name/type, and explains how drawings are rendered. This goes beyond a generic 'fetch' but stops short of detailing error behavior or response wrapping.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and context, and the second sentence adds an important edge-case behavior. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple fetch tool with no output schema or annotations, it covers the core return semantics (bytes, name/type, drawing behavior) and references the prerequisite list_attachments. Missing details include how errors are surfaced and whether bytes are encoded, but the description is reasonably complete for its scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'index' is a position in list_attachments, which is already in the schema, and adds little new parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify id/name/folder roles beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('attachment of a note') with a clear scope ('by its index in list_attachments'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_attachments and get_note by focusing on fetching one attachment's byte content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the intended workflow: first call list_attachments to obtain the index, then call get_attachment with that index. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the mention of list_attachments provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.